Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Shadow of Truth Ep.9 - Dr Paul Craig Roberts Unemployed America
Thank you for watching/listening. Subscribe, Share, Like Please visit Dr. Paul Craig Roberts http://www.paulcraigroberts.org Visit Dave Kranzler http://www.i...
Will Mexico’s Oil Give the U.S. Another Excuse for Covert Intervention?
The drug war brought U.S. commandos into Mexico, but the opening of the country’s once publicly-owned energy resources to foreign investors may provide justification for the secretive American presence there to escalate—especially if the cartels are successfully painted as “narcoterrorists.”
Energy resources can never be ignored in geopolitics. And an often forgotten fact is that Mexico is its northern neighbor’s third-largest source of foreign oil—enticingly located right next door.
Mexican petroleum and gas are about to hit the big time, with estimates that as much as $50 billion in new investments could flow into the country by 2018. The bidding began last year, and financiers are looking past today’s sharp drop in oil and gas prices at a lucrative future.
Naturally, outsiders who come drilling will expect a stable environment for profit. Companies do not want blocked shipments, bombed transit routes, kidnapped executives, or other interference from the cartels.
They want certainty, and military action is one way to provide it. Already, the Mexican Army is escorting contractors from Weatherford International, an oilfield services firm founded in Texas. And there is every reason to wonder if Pentagon or U.S. security contractors are assisting in such protection missions. Even members of the U.S. Marshals Service have taken part in operations dressed as Mexican Marines.
Set aside the oilfields, and there is still a lot of money on the line. Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, with half a trillion dollars crossing the border in 2013. Since 2000, U.S. foreign direct investment into the southern country stands at about a third of a trillion dollars.
The official line from the Pentagon is that there is no unusual activity caused by anything. Northern Command, covering the period from 9/11 onward, told WhoWhatWhy, “We do not have a permanent military presence in Mexico, other than those assigned to the U.S. Embassy” and “all other U.S. service men and women only go to Mexico for short duration exchanges on temporary duty.”
“But They Are There”
A private memo WikiLeaks obtained from the intelligence firm Stratfor—analyzed for the first time by WhoWhatWhy in an ongoing investigative partnership—states that United States special forces were conducting joint operations with Mexican special forces in 2011.
The internal document sources this information to someone the firm code-named “US714”: Texas Ranger Captain Aaron Grigsby, then head of the Border Security Operations Center in Austin. It is staffed by intelligence contractors from Abrams Learning & Information Systems, founded by Gen. John Abrams. Grigsby oversaw nearly 300 analysts and their surveillance programs. The job put him in a good position to see what commandos were actually doing in Mexico. [Email-ID 5359940, Feb. 17, 2011]
Here’s
what Grigsby told Stratfor. (Note that the document begins with the
firm’s standard header information for “insights” and includes the
judgment that the source is highly reliable and the information highly
credible (Email-ID 1547931)):
| Email-ID 1547931: “But They Are There”Date: June 15, 2011 From: Korena Zucha To: Secure List of Senior Analysts Subject: INSIGHT-MEXICO-US special forces in Mexico-US714Source Code: US714 ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security Source SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Officer with direct oversight of border investigations SOURCE RELIABILITY: A ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2 SOURCE HANDLER: Fred [Burton] U.S. special operations forces are currently in Mexico. Small scale joint ops with Mexico’s, but they are there. |
National security policy for energy resources is built across decades, regardless of the dates laws are passed. So it is not unusual that the Stratfor memo was sent two-and-a-half years before December 2013, the month Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed into law constitutional amendments authorizing foreign and private investment into oil and gas fields for the first time in 75 years.
Mexican “energy reform” has been on the U.S. radar for at least a decade. According to a 2006 classified diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, Tony Garza, then the ambassador to Mexico, raised the issue at a private dinner with then-President-elect Felipe Calderón. Garza told him: “To draw the investment and energy needed to jump-start Mexico’s economy, foreigners and Mexicans alike [have] to be reassured that the rule of law [will] prevail.”
Calderón launched a military war against the cartels as soon as he took office and only a month later indicated to potential investors that the certainty of law would come. He told the Financial Times that the “underlying strategy” of the operations was “to emphasize not just the issue of security but also that of the rule of law” and that taking on the cartels would provide “an indispensable element for broadening confidence in Mexico and generating much greater investment.”
Dollars and Doom?
The energy resources in Mexico are certainly sizable enough to appeal to big business. U.S. Geological Survey figures from 2012 show the country has about 65 billion barrels of unexploited oil, 118 trillion cubic feet of unexploited natural gas, and about 7,200 million barrels of unexploited liquid natural gas. According to a conservative WhoWhatWhy calculation (some estimates place the figures even higher) based on 2012 prices, this translates into $6.6 trillion of oil and gas.
Note that these lowball amounts already add up to nearly half the 2012 market value of unexploited petroleum and gas in Iraq—a country the U.S. recently resumed bombing, galvanized by the need to protect oilfields from the terrorist Islamic State militants.
Mexico suffers a similar problem in the scope of violence carried out by the drug cartels. On top of the physical danger the narcos pose, they are believed responsible for thefts of pipeline fuel worth $790 million in 2014 alone.
Yet without terrorism as a rallying cry, U.S. “management” of Mexico has to be framed in terms of the drug war—which itself has increasingly become subordinated to counterterrorism—unless, perhaps, U.S. policymakers are able to portray the cartels as “narcoterrorists,” effectively fusing the War on Drugs with the War on Terror.
The term “narcoterrorism” was launched in the United States largely by Rachel Ehrenfeld, who sits on the Committee on the Present Danger, a hawkish organization that advocates for amping up military budgets. In the 1980s, she portrayed the infamous Colombian cartels as Marxist-Leninist elements of a Soviet-directed global conspiracy. Political scholars found the claim far-fetched, but had it gained more traction, it could have been used as a justification to increase support for Cold War-based U.S. intervention in Central and South America.
After the Soviet Union collapsed and the post-9/11 era began, Ehrenfeld started claiming Mexican drug cartels were tied to terrorists and provided them easy access to the United States. Althouh there is little to no proof of this, the idea itself could build a firmer basis for military action in Mexico.
Indeed, for decades and especially after 9/11, the Drug Enforcement Administration, various members of Congress, the Pentagon, state intelligence centers, police organizations along the border, the media, and others have, with some success, tried to raise the profile of the “narcoterrorism nexus.” That’s the notion that drug traffickers and terrorists are inextricably linked together.
The obvious objection is that one-size-fits-all efforts against the two groups cannot work because they differ wildly. Terrorists are motivated by ideology and try to scare opponents they cannot otherwise defeat into taking self-destructive actions. Narcos are lethal black market businessmen who have one concern: profit. That’s why, with some exceptions, the “narcoterrorism” concept has never truly lifted off—yet.
But with resource corporations now moving into Mexico, preparing to profit hugely from forthcoming production-sharing agreements, the country may see more U.S. commandos stalking its cartels.
The greenback’s dominance in the developing world may be under threat as more emerging economies reduce their reliance on the global trade currency.
Is the dollar losing its clout among EMs? (gold = monetary insurance)
The greenback’s dominance in the developing world may be under threat as more emerging economies begin to reduce their reliance on the global trade currency.
“Decreasing reliance on the dollar is an important trend that’s going to grow,” said Jim Rickards, chief global strategist at West Shore Funds. “As far as emerging markets, the rise of bilateral trading deals is significant for the dollar’s future as a trade currency.”
The greenback’s dominance in the developing world may be under threat as more emerging economies begin to reduce their reliance on the global trade currency.
“Decreasing reliance on the dollar is an important trend that’s going to grow,” said Jim Rickards, chief global strategist at West Shore Funds. “As far as emerging markets, the rise of bilateral trading deals is significant for the dollar’s future as a trade currency.”
Around 80 percent of global trade finance is
conducted in dollars, according to January data from SWIFT. But over the
past few months, Russia and China have spearheaded a movement to use
their domestic currencies for bilateral trade in an effort to distance
themselves from dollar-denominated settlements. The countries recently
signed a $24 billion three-year currency swaps agreement to double
trading.
Meanwhile, Moscow and New Delhi may agree on a currency deal next
year, Russian news agency TASS reported two weeks ago. Russia and Egypt
are also considering a deal, according to Egyptian media reports last
month.
“In some cases, high dollarization can
facilitate trade. But there are drawbacks, such as limiting exchange
rate flexibility to mitigate against external shocks, and constraining
the central bank’s ability to be the lender of last resort. Under such
circumstances, consideration could be given to actively promote
de-dollarization,” he said.
Do Corporations Really Need More Rights? Why Fast-Track for the TPP Is a Bad Idea
Idea
President Obama is currently pressing members of Congress to pass Fast Track authority for a trade and investment agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). If Fast Track passes, it means that Congress must approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Astonishingly, our lawmakers have not seen the agreement they are being asked to expedite.
The TPP is presented as an agreement to increase U.S. exports and jobs. But what is really at stake is democracy—in the United States as well as in the 11 other Pacific Rim countries that are parties to the TPP.
Given past agreements on which the TPP is modeled, including the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), TPP provisions will likely have significant implications for nearly every aspect of American life—including intellectual property rights, labor and environmental protections, consumer safety and product labeling, government procurement, and national resource management. Given the way these agreements are crafted, we can be quite certain that the implications will favor corporate profits over human well-being. And once the agreement is approved, its provisions will trump national and local laws, including the U.S. Constitution, and will not be subject to review or revision by any national legislative or judicial body—including the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is expected that the TPP will include an Investor State Dispute Settlement provision that gives foreign corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits due to laws—such as environmental standards and safeguards for workers—they claim deprive them of revenue they might otherwise have received. Such claims are settled in tribunals comprised of trade lawyers whose identities are secret. The rulings of these tribunals pre-empt national laws and the decisions of national courts and are not subject to review by any national judicial or legislative body.
President Obama is currently pressing members of Congress to pass Fast Track authority for a trade and investment agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). If Fast Track passes, it means that Congress must approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Astonishingly, our lawmakers have not seen the agreement they are being asked to expedite.
The TPP is presented as an agreement to increase U.S. exports and jobs. But what is really at stake is democracy—in the United States as well as in the 11 other Pacific Rim countries that are parties to the TPP.
Given past agreements on which the TPP is modeled, including the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), TPP provisions will likely have significant implications for nearly every aspect of American life—including intellectual property rights, labor and environmental protections, consumer safety and product labeling, government procurement, and national resource management. Given the way these agreements are crafted, we can be quite certain that the implications will favor corporate profits over human well-being. And once the agreement is approved, its provisions will trump national and local laws, including the U.S. Constitution, and will not be subject to review or revision by any national legislative or judicial body—including the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is expected that the TPP will include an Investor State Dispute Settlement provision that gives foreign corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits due to laws—such as environmental standards and safeguards for workers—they claim deprive them of revenue they might otherwise have received. Such claims are settled in tribunals comprised of trade lawyers whose identities are secret. The rulings of these tribunals pre-empt national laws and the decisions of national courts and are not subject to review by any national judicial or legislative body.
Richard Duncan: How Governments Are Using QE to Magically Wipe Away Their Debt
Mar 6 – Cris Sheridan welcomes back
Richard Duncan, Chief Economist at Blackhorse Asset Management in
Singapore. Richard explains why quantitative easing is a form of debt
cancellation and the number one… http://www.financialsense.com/subscribe
Big private banks might be too-big-to-fail, and might be even too-big-to-jail (prosecute). But they are not-too-big-to-abandon….
by
image: http://i1.wp.com/www.kitchener.ca/uploads/634934100466971703_Final.jpg
The Region of Waterloo’s debt is fast approaching $700 million, and is rapidly growing as you read this. Debt servicing (i.e. paying a high compounded interest (usury) on the debt to a private commercial bank) will cost the region about $62 million this year. Of that, about $48 million will come from taxpayers. And where will the remaining $14 million in interest payments come from? This huge debt is due to regional government borrowing from private banks at high compounded interest.
Big private banks might be too-big-to-fail, and according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, they might be even too-big-to-jail (prosecute). But they are not-too-big-to-abandon as depositories for government funds. As of the spring of 2010, North Dakota was the only US state sporting a major budget surplus; it had the lowest unemployment and default rates in the US. Why? If the State of North Dakota can bypass Wall Street with its state-owned public bank (BND), and declare financial independence, so can the Region of Waterloo, Kitchener, Toronto, Ontario, and all other cities and provinces across Canada bypass Bay Street.
Is creating a new bank in Canada too much trouble, perhaps? Apparently not so. Not even for a Canadian grocery store. Loblaw’s bank, President’s Choice Financial, was ranked by J.D. Power Associates, as having the highest customer satisfaction among mid-size Canadian banks several years in a row.
Let’s imagine that the Region of Waterloo, and some of small and medium-size businesses, as well as some individual customers, bring their banking business to the Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that total deposits at the bank would be 100 million dollars.
Now comes the really sweet part. Due to the “Alchemy” of fractional-reserve bankinglaws, our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener would be allowed toexpand those 100 million dollars on its balance sheet by a traditional and conservative factor of 20, and actually create so-called new money, out of thin air. That would be a nice, round sum of 2 Billion dollars, interest-free, and tax-free. Do you know of any other business better than this one?
What could the Region of Waterloo do with all this extra interest-free money that would suddenly be in possesion of? It could pay off its entire regional debt, fully finance its budget interest-free, lower the ever-growing property taxes, finance additional social programs and benefits for the poor, and still sport a budget surplus. And think of all those new public banking government jobs created in the region of Waterloo that will pay for themselves.
Instead of borrowing from private commercial banks at usurious interest, why not borrow from the Ontario Public Bank, or from Toronto Public Bank, or from our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener, or from our PUBLIC BANK OF CANADA interest-free? Usury is not a law of nature; it comes from human greed. That would relieve the top fiscal pressure in the region of Waterloo, instead of having to continually increase taxes, cut social programs and benefits to save money. Why not save all those unnecessary debt servicing payments, a staggering $62 million this year alone, and deposit them all in our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener instead? Martin Wolf is widely considered to be one of the world’s most influential writers on economics. He is the associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times:
Have you ever wondered how private commercial banks can afford to pay out all those multi-million dollar year-end bonuses before Christmas? In the US, Pacific Investment Management paid its former chief investment officer, Bill Gross, a bonus of about $290 million. Last year Canada’s big banks gave out $12.2 Billion in bonuses, 13 percent more than a year before. No austerity in the banking sector in Canada! Where do those more-than-generous bonuses come from? From the usury the People of Canada pay to the greedy private banks that are to-big-to-jail. And how was your Christmas last year? If you can’t join them, beat them at their own game —establish a public bank in Kitchener.
Former Chicago Mayoral candidate, and urban planner, Amara Enyia J.D. is a supporter of municipal public banks. The principles Dr. Amara Enyia outlines would also work for a state-owned public bank:
“Right now we are in debt to other financial entities. I think when I last checked it was about $900 million. So the concept of a public bank is the notion of the bank as a public utility, a bank that works for the interests of the city of Chicago. Its allegiance is to the taxpayers. For example, extending lines of credit to small businesses, to homeowners who want to get loans for homes, and repairs on their buildings if you’re a landlord. These are the sorts of things that it’s very difficult to get private financing from traditional banking institutions. The other benefit is infrastructure—having the money to execute infrastructure projects, such as our streets, our sewage systems, all those sorts of projects at low interest rates. Right now, the interest rates are sky high and, with that interest, the city never sees any of those dollars. We’re just paying it out to these other financial entities, so imagine if that interest is actually recirculating back into our economy. It reduces the cost of these projects, but it also means that our money is recirculating back, which is in the interest of the public, the taxpayers. This is something that has worked in North Dakota. They’ve found that the Bank of North Dakota is actually outperforming all of the Wall Street banks. It is something that has been done in Europe, so it exists and the model is there, it’s just a matter of pushing this idea for the city of Chicago.”
Considering all of the above, who would like to say “No” to the idea of establishing the Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener, and why?
Please, let us know! Thank you.
B. A. Rosenberg
image: http://i1.wp.com/www.kitchener.ca/uploads/634934100466971703_Final.jpg
Waterloo Region Record (TheRecord.com) staff writer Paige Desmond reports:
“Region of Waterloo councillors vote Wednesday (4 March 2015) to
approve the 2015 budget and set the spending tone for this term of
council. The last term of council hiked taxes 8.9 per cent and this council is expected to start things off with a 2.5 per cent increase—above the 2.4
per cent rate of inflation for 2014. That would add about $44.68 to the
property tax bill on a home assessed at $291,000. ‘It’s a big
operation. There’s a lot going on at the region, so that’s well within
our guidelines and I think we’re in a good shape,’ Councillor Geoff
Lorentz said. Top fiscal pressures include debt servicing [i.e. paying a high compounded interest (usury) on the debt to a private commercial bank],rapid
transit and staff compensation, though more debate is expected on
requests from staff, community organizations and councillors, Lorentz
said. Council voted to hikewater and waste water rates
by 4.9 per cent and 7.9 per cent respectively in February, staying on
track with a plan to increase water rates up to 45 per cent over 10
years.” The Region of Waterloo’s debt is fast approaching $700 million, and is rapidly growing as you read this. Debt servicing (i.e. paying a high compounded interest (usury) on the debt to a private commercial bank) will cost the region about $62 million this year. Of that, about $48 million will come from taxpayers. And where will the remaining $14 million in interest payments come from? This huge debt is due to regional government borrowing from private banks at high compounded interest.
Big private banks might be too-big-to-fail, and according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, they might be even too-big-to-jail (prosecute). But they are not-too-big-to-abandon as depositories for government funds. As of the spring of 2010, North Dakota was the only US state sporting a major budget surplus; it had the lowest unemployment and default rates in the US. Why? If the State of North Dakota can bypass Wall Street with its state-owned public bank (BND), and declare financial independence, so can the Region of Waterloo, Kitchener, Toronto, Ontario, and all other cities and provinces across Canada bypass Bay Street.
Is creating a new bank in Canada too much trouble, perhaps? Apparently not so. Not even for a Canadian grocery store. Loblaw’s bank, President’s Choice Financial, was ranked by J.D. Power Associates, as having the highest customer satisfaction among mid-size Canadian banks several years in a row.
Would creating a public bank in Kitchener be worth
the effort? Don’t we have enough banks in Kitchener and in our
region already?
Let’s do some math, and see.Let’s imagine that the Region of Waterloo, and some of small and medium-size businesses, as well as some individual customers, bring their banking business to the Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that total deposits at the bank would be 100 million dollars.
Now comes the really sweet part. Due to the “Alchemy” of fractional-reserve bankinglaws, our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener would be allowed toexpand those 100 million dollars on its balance sheet by a traditional and conservative factor of 20, and actually create so-called new money, out of thin air. That would be a nice, round sum of 2 Billion dollars, interest-free, and tax-free. Do you know of any other business better than this one?
What could the Region of Waterloo do with all this extra interest-free money that would suddenly be in possesion of? It could pay off its entire regional debt, fully finance its budget interest-free, lower the ever-growing property taxes, finance additional social programs and benefits for the poor, and still sport a budget surplus. And think of all those new public banking government jobs created in the region of Waterloo that will pay for themselves.
Instead of borrowing from private commercial banks at usurious interest, why not borrow from the Ontario Public Bank, or from Toronto Public Bank, or from our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener, or from our PUBLIC BANK OF CANADA interest-free? Usury is not a law of nature; it comes from human greed. That would relieve the top fiscal pressure in the region of Waterloo, instead of having to continually increase taxes, cut social programs and benefits to save money. Why not save all those unnecessary debt servicing payments, a staggering $62 million this year alone, and deposit them all in our Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener instead? Martin Wolf is widely considered to be one of the world’s most influential writers on economics. He is the associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times:
“One of these radical ideas was proposed by Martin Wolf
in the Financial Times. He suggests stripping private banks of their
remarkable power to create money out of thin air. Simply by issuing
credit, they spawn between 95% and 97% of the money supply. If the state
were to assert a monopoly on money creation [via public central bank],
government could increase their money supply without increasing debt.
Seigniorage (the difference between the cost of producing money and its
value) would accrue to the state, adding billions to national coffers.
Private commercial banks would be reduced to being servants, not
masters, of economy.” — George Monbiot theguardian.com
Money, everywhere and always, has been created out of thin air, and simply printed out as fancy paper notes. Anyone can do it. It is the best job ever. Private commercial banks create the money they lend just as public banks do — out of thin air.
The difference is simply that a publicly-owned bank returns the profits
to the government and the People of the country, while a
privately-owned bank siphons the principal plus interest into its
capital account, to be re-loaned at further interest, progressively
drawing money out of the productive economy.Have you ever wondered how private commercial banks can afford to pay out all those multi-million dollar year-end bonuses before Christmas? In the US, Pacific Investment Management paid its former chief investment officer, Bill Gross, a bonus of about $290 million. Last year Canada’s big banks gave out $12.2 Billion in bonuses, 13 percent more than a year before. No austerity in the banking sector in Canada! Where do those more-than-generous bonuses come from? From the usury the People of Canada pay to the greedy private banks that are to-big-to-jail. And how was your Christmas last year? If you can’t join them, beat them at their own game —establish a public bank in Kitchener.
Former Chicago Mayoral candidate, and urban planner, Amara Enyia J.D. is a supporter of municipal public banks. The principles Dr. Amara Enyia outlines would also work for a state-owned public bank:
“Right now we are in debt to other financial entities. I think when I last checked it was about $900 million. So the concept of a public bank is the notion of the bank as a public utility, a bank that works for the interests of the city of Chicago. Its allegiance is to the taxpayers. For example, extending lines of credit to small businesses, to homeowners who want to get loans for homes, and repairs on their buildings if you’re a landlord. These are the sorts of things that it’s very difficult to get private financing from traditional banking institutions. The other benefit is infrastructure—having the money to execute infrastructure projects, such as our streets, our sewage systems, all those sorts of projects at low interest rates. Right now, the interest rates are sky high and, with that interest, the city never sees any of those dollars. We’re just paying it out to these other financial entities, so imagine if that interest is actually recirculating back into our economy. It reduces the cost of these projects, but it also means that our money is recirculating back, which is in the interest of the public, the taxpayers. This is something that has worked in North Dakota. They’ve found that the Bank of North Dakota is actually outperforming all of the Wall Street banks. It is something that has been done in Europe, so it exists and the model is there, it’s just a matter of pushing this idea for the city of Chicago.”
Victor Hugo said: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
That time is now.Considering all of the above, who would like to say “No” to the idea of establishing the Mackenzie King Regional Public Bank of Kitchener, and why?
Please, let us know! Thank you.
B. A. Rosenberg
Outrage boils over as B.C. government plans to sell groundwater for $2.25 per million litres
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Outrage+boils+over+government+plans+sell+groundwater+million+litres/10865416/story.html
More than 82,000 people have signed a petition against the government’s plans to sell B.C.’s water for $2.25 per million litres.
“It is outrageous,” says the online petition from SumOfUs.org, that corporations can buy water “for next to nothing.”
B.C.’s Water Sustainability Act (WSA), which comes into effect next January and replaces the province’s century-old water legislation, has been heralded as a major step forward. But politicians and experts are raising doubts over whether the newly announced water fees may be too low to cover the cost of the program, asking if the act simply won’t be implemented properly, or if taxpayers could end up picking up the bill.
Last month, the government unveiled the new water pricing structure, which will include, for the first time in B.C.’s history, groundwater being regulated and subject to fees and rentals.
Critics said that, while it’s a step in the right direction, the prices are still not close to capturing the resource’s value.
Under the new regime, most residential water users won’t see a big difference. Households with wells are exempt from fees, and homes supplied by municipal water systems may pay $1 or $2 more per year, according to the ministry.
But water rates for industrial users, which are a fraction of what some provinces charge, are “like a giveaway” to corporations, critics say.
NDP environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert said the new legislation is “promising,” but questioned whether it would actually live up to its promise, or just remain “nice words on paper.”
“I don’t think the water’s being properly valued in order to properly protect it,” he said, adding effective water management involves “boots on the ground” to enforce the act, and “policy people” to make decisions.
“A lot of business groups, community groups, farmers — they want to see better protection for their water. I’m just worried we’re not going to get it.”
When Chandra Herbert raised the issue last month in the legislature, Environment Minister Mary Polak replied that British Columbians are “quite proud” that B.C. “has never engaged in the selling of water as a commodity.”
Polak said: “We don’t sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource.”
A
Ministry of Environment spokesman said the new fees and rentals have
been set to cover the cost of administering the new WSA, estimated at $8
million per year.
In the legislature, Polak pointed to the example of Nestlé, Canada’s largest bottled-water producer, which operates a plant in Hope and, she said, will be “charged at the highest industrial rate.”
Under the old Water Act, Nestlé, like other groundwater users, didn’t need to pay the government anything for water withdrawals. But under the WSA, Nestlé will start paying for the hundreds of millions of litres of groundwater they withdraw, bottle and sell. That rate of $2.25 per million litres — the highest industrial rate in the new price structure — means Nestlé will pay the government $596.25 a year for 265 million litres.
Under the WSA, Nestlé and other groundwater users also will begin paying permit fees. A Nestlé executive said he expects the annual fee for water-bottling companies to be between $1,000 and $10,000.
The government’s review of water pricing is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” said Oliver Brandes from the University of Victoria’s POLIS Project. But there’s still “significant uncertainty,” he said, about whether the new system will provide sufficient resources to implement the act.
The WSA, he said, “has the potential to be revolutionary, but only if it’s fully — key word, fully — implemented, which requires dollars.”
Someone needs to pay that bill, Brandes said, whether it’s B.C. taxpayers or water users. And linking that cost recovery to the large-scale industrial users, he said, may be not only more ecologically and financially sustainable, but more fair as well.
If the new fees fail to cover the cost of the program, that could effectively mean industries enjoy cheap water subsidized by taxpayers, said David Zetland, a professor of economics and a water pricing expert.
“And if the taxpayer’s subsidizing it, that’s a scandal,” said Zetland, who previously taught at SFU.
The government expects that won’t happen, but Zetland suspects, with the current rates, “taxpayers are going to be on the hook.”
John Challinor, Nestlé Waters Canada’s director of corporate affairs, said: “All monies collected should be used solely to support the management and enforcement of the regulation. This program should not be subsidized by taxpayers who don’t draw groundwater.”
The program should be “self-funded,” Challinor said, with pricing “based on a full cost recovery model” to cover mapping of watersheds, audits, management and enforcement.
“We have always agreed to pay our fair share for groundwater. But, we also believe that all commercial, municipal and domestic groundwater users should pay their fair share.”
More than 82,000 people have signed a petition against the government’s plans to sell B.C.’s water for $2.25 per million litres.
“It is outrageous,” says the online petition from SumOfUs.org, that corporations can buy water “for next to nothing.”
B.C.’s Water Sustainability Act (WSA), which comes into effect next January and replaces the province’s century-old water legislation, has been heralded as a major step forward. But politicians and experts are raising doubts over whether the newly announced water fees may be too low to cover the cost of the program, asking if the act simply won’t be implemented properly, or if taxpayers could end up picking up the bill.
Last month, the government unveiled the new water pricing structure, which will include, for the first time in B.C.’s history, groundwater being regulated and subject to fees and rentals.
Critics said that, while it’s a step in the right direction, the prices are still not close to capturing the resource’s value.
Under the new regime, most residential water users won’t see a big difference. Households with wells are exempt from fees, and homes supplied by municipal water systems may pay $1 or $2 more per year, according to the ministry.
But water rates for industrial users, which are a fraction of what some provinces charge, are “like a giveaway” to corporations, critics say.
NDP environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert said the new legislation is “promising,” but questioned whether it would actually live up to its promise, or just remain “nice words on paper.”
“I don’t think the water’s being properly valued in order to properly protect it,” he said, adding effective water management involves “boots on the ground” to enforce the act, and “policy people” to make decisions.
“A lot of business groups, community groups, farmers — they want to see better protection for their water. I’m just worried we’re not going to get it.”
When Chandra Herbert raised the issue last month in the legislature, Environment Minister Mary Polak replied that British Columbians are “quite proud” that B.C. “has never engaged in the selling of water as a commodity.”
Polak said: “We don’t sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource.”
A
Ministry of Environment spokesman said the new fees and rentals have
been set to cover the cost of administering the new WSA, estimated at $8
million per year.In the legislature, Polak pointed to the example of Nestlé, Canada’s largest bottled-water producer, which operates a plant in Hope and, she said, will be “charged at the highest industrial rate.”
Under the old Water Act, Nestlé, like other groundwater users, didn’t need to pay the government anything for water withdrawals. But under the WSA, Nestlé will start paying for the hundreds of millions of litres of groundwater they withdraw, bottle and sell. That rate of $2.25 per million litres — the highest industrial rate in the new price structure — means Nestlé will pay the government $596.25 a year for 265 million litres.
Under the WSA, Nestlé and other groundwater users also will begin paying permit fees. A Nestlé executive said he expects the annual fee for water-bottling companies to be between $1,000 and $10,000.
The government’s review of water pricing is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” said Oliver Brandes from the University of Victoria’s POLIS Project. But there’s still “significant uncertainty,” he said, about whether the new system will provide sufficient resources to implement the act.
The WSA, he said, “has the potential to be revolutionary, but only if it’s fully — key word, fully — implemented, which requires dollars.”
Someone needs to pay that bill, Brandes said, whether it’s B.C. taxpayers or water users. And linking that cost recovery to the large-scale industrial users, he said, may be not only more ecologically and financially sustainable, but more fair as well.
If the new fees fail to cover the cost of the program, that could effectively mean industries enjoy cheap water subsidized by taxpayers, said David Zetland, a professor of economics and a water pricing expert.
“And if the taxpayer’s subsidizing it, that’s a scandal,” said Zetland, who previously taught at SFU.
The government expects that won’t happen, but Zetland suspects, with the current rates, “taxpayers are going to be on the hook.”
John Challinor, Nestlé Waters Canada’s director of corporate affairs, said: “All monies collected should be used solely to support the management and enforcement of the regulation. This program should not be subsidized by taxpayers who don’t draw groundwater.”
The program should be “self-funded,” Challinor said, with pricing “based on a full cost recovery model” to cover mapping of watersheds, audits, management and enforcement.
“We have always agreed to pay our fair share for groundwater. But, we also believe that all commercial, municipal and domestic groundwater users should pay their fair share.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)